Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday January 01, 2012 @10:12PM
from the allocation-problems dept.

cylonlover writes "What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped. They often get away with it, too, unless an attendant happens to check while their vehicle is parked there. Thanks to technology recently developed by New Zealand's Car Parking Technologies (CPT), however, those attendants could soon be notified the instant that a handicapped spot is improperly occupied."

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

What does it mean when a parking spot is marked with a wheelchair symbol? If you answered, 'It means I can park there as long as I'm going to be quick,' you're wrong — yet you're also far from alone. Every day in parking lots all over the world, non-disabled drivers regularly use spaces clearly reserved for the handicapped.

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

Thinking about it...

Thinking about it...

Continuing to think about it...

Almost done thinking about it...

There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

While I can't speak for what the OP thinks about disabled people in general, I think the point to take from this would be that we could legitimately get away with having far fewer handicapped parking spaces without impacting the ability of handicapped people to find a reserved space when they need one.

The legal specification of what percentage of handicapped spaces are required ought to be revisited to reflect reality.

I would counter, as a handicapped person, that there are too few. While there may be empty reserved slots much of the time, the "subscription rate" is for the busy times. I have been to places during holidays and other usually busy times where the reserved spots are all legitimately used.

Then there are times I have returned to my car where some asshole, not content with illegitimately filling a handicap spot, parked in the slot marked for where my access ramp would extend out the side. No matter how many times I activated the hydraulic ramp it wouldn't clear the now-scratched-and -dented side of the asshole's car.

This isn't free market. This is assisting the disabled who could be injured trying to access or, worse, permanently barred from accessing stores and services. In a perfect free market people are nothing but resources to be exploited and the disabled would be discarded like broken machinery. I resist that.

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. What makes me crazy is hospitals. Around where I live, the requirement for number of handicapped spaces seems to be the same for hospitals as for all other businesses. While some businesses could make do with less, I'd say every hospital in my area needs four times as many handicapped spaces as they actually have. I have a disabled sister and have to drive her around quite a bit and we can usually find a spot...but not at hospitals. They all seem to always be full.

You'd think the people that make the rules would realize that there's a higher percentage of handicapped folks visiting hospitals than the grocery store.

The rules are the rules, and woe be to anyone who breaks them, or worse, suggests that they be relaxed.

My dorm had this issue:

1. The minimum number of handicapped spaces is set by the size of the parking lot.2. This parking lot was oddly shaped. About 12 spots near the dorm, a long path area (with curb parking) and then 500 more spaces about 0.5km away.

The result is that all of the parking spaces next to the dorm were required to be handicapped spaces. This really sucks when you LIVE in that location a

If there's an unnecessary handicapped spot, able-bodied people have to walk at most one parking place farther (usually less.) But during the times of day when it's not very busy, the average able-bodied person already gets to walk less, because the parking lot's not very full, so they already win. And while the original article was about New Zealanders, we're Americans, and making us get extra exercise walking in from the parking lot is about the best National Health Care we're going to get.

Meanwhile I am already in the store shopping because I went straight for an obvious empty space and was parked and on my way to the store as they were on the first round of the car park. I'm also first out of the car park when I leave. I simply don't understand people who spend time trying to find a car parking space thirty yards closer to the entrance.

illegal parking in handicapped spots is a problem just about everywhere.. and there aren't too many reserved spots either. if anything there isn't enough -- partly because of that illegal parking. but without adequate enforcement, adding more spots would just increase the occurrence of illegal parking in them.

the walmart here for instance, has about 15 reserved spots. during the day, most are always full (and during busy times they are full). and more often than not, there is at least one parked in one of those spots that shouldn't be... even though there *are* 'regular' spots closer to a door than the handicapped spots.

as a side note, another local store goes one further and has reserved spots for expectant mothers and elderly customers (not legally enforceable like a handicapped spot but still towable if you abuse the property owner's posted rules)

it should be noted that not everybody that qualifies for parking in a reserved handicapped spot, always parks in one (even if one is available). many also don't even get the necessary permit unless they require the extra room.

Some places (obviously not in the US) call them "mobility" spots and have restrictions based on mobility. That makes much more sense. People unable to walk 200 meters unassisted can get one, but those without issues traveling, regardless of other disabilities, are ineligible.

The problem with clear-cut peg hole rules is that they ignore that people aren't pegs. I can walk. And I can see. But I can't walk and see at the same time. I can't get a handicap permit because I can walk, because that's all the rules care about. Never mind that that won't help me - I am unable to cross a street, and am in danger in any parking lot, but not because of mobility, but because I can't see whether there's traffic.

I think a better rule would be that all permits should be applied for through a doctor, who can plead the medical necessity by describing the actual need.

If the handicapped person is driving someone else to run in the store, but he handicapped person does not get out of the car themselves, then they are not entitled to park there.

Yes, but looks can deceive. I had a friend (rest in peace) who was a hemophiliac. He could not drive a car because of his disease, but he could walk very short distances. When his companion parked his car and waited while he was shopping, there was often verbal abuse from people who just didn't get it - the handicapped person really was using the store, and required a close parking space.

Again, things are seldom black and white, and judging people based on fixed rules will always hurt those who least can afford to be hurt. In my opinion, it's better to let a hundred people who might not need a permit get it, than to refuse a single person who does need it.

The rules state "Are unable to walk more than 200 metres unassisted because of the nature or severity of your condition." So your eyes stopping working the moment your legs are moving would be sufficient, depending on the doctor. If you've tried and failed to get one, go somewhere else and ask. Or maybe there is some doubt as to your condition, as I've never heard of someone going blind while walking.

Neck injury. When I stand or walk, I look straight down, and the visual cone means I can see the feet of people about 2m in front of me, slightly more to the sides. Anything further away or higher up, I just can't see. Which makes traversing a large parking lot or crossing a street rather challenging.When I recline, like when I drive, I can see just fine. OK, I can't see the ceiling of the car, but that's not a requirement for driving.

i always assumed someday someone would get the intelligent idea of a making a small card and a parking meter type device which allows you to park in handicapped spot you could check the device and if the person used the card then it would say so. otherwise the device would display a message saying the driver was illegally parked. but then common sense doesn't seem to be in high supply
and even though i drive an old clunker caddie i always park in the back that way i don't drive around for ten minutes tryin

That goes for the cunts who use their relative's handicapped parking placard when they are driving their car and the person the placard was assigned too isn't in it. Yes, I've seen this a lot. It not only is illegal but makes people suspect that the handicapped are milking it.

GP did not say he or she has ever parked in one. Didn't even hint that it would ever be OK for a non-handicapped person to park there. Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

>> Your knee-jerk leap to a foul-mouthed implication of an ulterior motive to his or her post is inappropriate.

> You must be new here.

I've been around long enough to get the running joke, and find it amusng.

Still, though, I feel like replying:

Not only am I not new here, I have frequently succumbed to the urge to spew some vitriol at someone I disagreed with. I'm fairly confident that I will again in the future. No, I'm not new to that experience from either side of the exchange, nor as a bystander.

There. Done thinking about it. You're still a cunt for parking there if you aren't disabled. Walk the extra dozen or so feet, it might do you some good.

I agree.

On the other, here in CA they give out the placards for obesity. If you are obese, you should be given a placard that forces you to park at the other end of the supermarket lot so you can get a whole 0.1 miles of walking in before buying 2 dozen bacon-wrapped-cupcakes.

So yeah, you are a cunt if you park in handicapped spots and deprive someone that legitimately needs it. On the other hand, you are a cunt if you neglect (or even just destroy) you entire body and then expect society to accommodate you

So at one level I can see your resentment. Its not fair to subsidize the irresponsible. My question is that when you see someone overweight coming out of a car in a handicapped parking place, do you even for one microsecond consider that their malady might be the reason for their obesity. I was in a car accident in 2002. I shattered my right leg, and had to have my right foot reattached. There is an 8 inch steel plate and over 2 dozen stainless steel screws in my ankle, leg and a 4 inch screw through my right knee where I suffered a plateau fracture of the right tibia, That is where the force of the impact is so great it splits the tibia down the middle like splitting a rail.

Before that, I'd won fitness awards. It was a long time I spent on my back, then a wheel chair, then crutches. I put on a lot of weight due to the sudden change in my lifestyle and the inability to stand on my bad leg. I'm only now (10 years later) at a point in my life where I think with the help of the right trainer/physical therapist I might be able to get myself back into shape. My leg however, will always hurt, and will never again function fully (unless the day comes that it can be replaced with a perfect working replica.) Do you see me as one of you lazy irresponsible fat bodies who doesn't deserve a placard?

Even when I get back down to my proper weight and fitness level, I will endure continuous pain and the inability to walk significant distances. You wouldn't be able to tell from a distance except perhaps by my slight limp or if you looked carefully you might notice something strange about the shape of my right ankle. Would you just assume I'm gaming the system, cheating you and the public in general. All I'm saying is rather than jumping to the worst conclusion immediately, perhaps you should stop for a second and ask yourself why that person has gotten a handicapped placard or license plate. Ultimately it takes a doctor to say a person needs it or not, though most doctors will lean towards the needs and want of the patient, a good doctor would almost certain say to a simply obese patient, get your fat ass to the furthest parking space and walk... its good for you. That is of course assuming they put their patient's well being ahead of looking good or making people happy. As well, you might just stop for a moment and wonder if an obese person would give up their placard in a heart beat to be fully healthy and vibrant again. I know I would.

Don't be so quick to judge, unless you've walked a mile on my crutches.

I'm in my 30s and recently had a stroke. I got a handicapped placard because I'd be subject to bouts of fatigue. Essentially, when my damaged brain had enough, I'd mostly fall asleep. I really wanted it to minimize the distance to the car I'd have to travel if I were far away when I had an issue. But getting out of the car, a fit, normal looking 30-something hopping out of a car with no limp, no visible issue, capable of running miles on a good day (and using it because at least soon after the stroke, t

It's been a long time since I've seen the P&T episode about handicap parking but as I remember it was a fairly interesting episode. As I remember their point was that there should be handicap parking spaces but there shouldn't be government mandates telling you if you park there you should get a $500+ fine. Businesses should make handicap parking spaces because they want the business of handicap people, people shouldn't park there because that's kind of a dick move. If you think people to big of asshole

The handicap spots are full of assholes now, how do you think it'd be without penalties? Are shops going to piss off their customers with huge fines for their "dick move"? No. All that would happen is that all the healthy people would get to park a little closer (remember, distance fans out in a circle - there's a lot more spots in a 50 feet radius than a 20 feet radius) and handicapped people would be shit out of luck. Either hang in front of the closest spots waiting for one to clear - and those who need extra space for a wheelchair ramp would never get the double spot they need - or park far out with most everybody else. Those people are going to hurt more, perhaps make a condition worse and in the worst case say I can't get to the shop on my own, I need aid of some sort. And those costs are coming back to you either in form of more government programs or higher health insurance, the extra costs are getting passed to you. Enabling people to take care of themselves it usually one the of the best things you can do, both for them and you.

You're missing a big part of it. It's not OCD, it's misapplied competitiveness with the accompanying neurotransmitter squirt. You "win" if you get a closer-in space than most of the other people.

Silly? Maybe, but keep in mind that you're talking to a community where a substantial fraction spend a lot of time pressing buttons to acquire virtual currency that can only be spent to flip some bits that will let them acquire more virtual currency.

That's based on the incorrect assumption that the businesses will attempt to match the customer base demographics. Regardless of whether the business has 10% handicapped or 50% handicapped patrons, if they fill their parking areas regularly, the best option for them economically will be to have no handicapped bays. At their smallest a handicapped bay will take up a space equivalent to 1.5 regular bays, and will often be larger. Therefore, if they regularly run out of parking, then a way for the business to increase revenue would be to remove all disabled bays, and replace them with regular bays, thus increasing customer numbers. Sure, they'll lose a demographic, but they'll be replaced with other customers who'd normally bypass the store due to parking. Heck, depending on competition they may not even lose any business, if they're the only store offering a certain commodity, they'll retain the handicapped business, but they'll be forced to go outside peak times in order to get spaces that meet their needs.

Economically, in most cases the best situation for a store is no handicapped bays, which is why government regulation is necessary.

One of the interesting points of the episode, and something I've noticed as will others, is that handicapped parking spots are almost always empty. Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet. Big deal.

Empty parking spots all over the world that most people aren't allowed to use, which of course clutters up the rest of the parking lot. Just something to think about.

That's not interesting. Not even the slightest bit. So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store...

I thoroughly believe that we should have spaces available for those who need it, as well as other appropriate accommodations. But I think the GP brings up a larger issue, which is when it gets to be too much -- when laws and attempts to accommodate are so important due to political correctness that they trump reason.

For example, I remember hearing a news story a year or two back about a guy who was going around some state (I think California) and suing any business that didn't follow rather restrictive and arbitrary laws about accommodations to the letter. He would just show up in a town, wander around, and a month later, half a dozen businesses would get threatened with a lawsuit. Often, because of space issues or building design issues or whatever, the businesses couldn't actually put in whatever random accommodation, so they would settle -- effectively paying shake-down money to this guy.

Is this common? I don't know. The news story mentioned one other lawyer accused of doing a similar scheme. But our collective sensitivity to the issue led to irrational laws that support such behavior.

Another personal anecdote: a few years back I was meeting up with some people to go on a short road trip outside of a building in an area with limited parking. We had three cars, one of which was parked in front of a fire hydrant too close to an intersection, one of which was parked in a loading/tow zone, and one parked in a handicapped spot. (There were two handicapped spots there, and the other was empty: in fact, these spots weren't convenient to any important buildings, so I'm not sure I had ever seen cars parked there.) All had flashers on, and we were only there for a couple minutes. It was obvious we were packing stuff in cars and were all there with the cars, and if two cars had suddenly shown up for the handicapped spots, we would have gladly moved.

A police car drives by. They stop and ask about the car in the spot. We explain the situation -- that we're loading up, there's another empty space, we'll be gone in a minute, etc. They don't care: we have to move. They say nothing about the two other cars parked illegally, including the one that was actually a traffic safety hazard.

So, we pull the car out of the space and also into an illegal parking spot too close to an intersection. That satisfies the police, and they drive away.

Again, I'm all for providing accommodations. But when law enforcement is happier with cars stopped in hazardous No Parking zones rather than take up one of two empty handicapped spaces that are never used anyway, something's a little amiss.

California was one of the pioneers of "public interest" lawsuits. The intention was good: allow those who see violations to sue to force corrections. This reduced the pressure on authorities to track every single possible infraction and encouraged those who should have followed the regulations to ensure that they did because additional eyes were on them.

Unfortunately, multiple law firms were using this as a money-making scheme, just as you described. It got so bad--people were being sued because their el

So we over-assign handicapped spots to try and make sure that when several truly handicapped people are at the store, they don't have to park at the back of the lot because we tried to cut the number of spots close so that some non-handicapped lard-asses didn't have to walk an extra 25 feet.

One of the early commenters was advocating a Darwinian perspective. He or she is obviously a total douchebag. But I don't think it is so clear cut when questioning the allocation ratio.

By your rationale (which I'm sure was not intended to be a bulletproof and thorough examination of the space -- I'm not trying to fault you), you could justify having half the parking lot be handicapped spaces. Clearly that would be an inefficient use of resources for all but the most handicap-focused retail centers.

This would not be a problem if retailers chose to put the right number of handicapped spaces in, but they do not (probably don't have the data to do it, even if they were so inclined, but also the profit would act as a pressure against it), so we have to legislate the number. That is the good and right thing to do, IMO. Now we have a question, though: Should it be 10% of spaces, 1% of spaces, or 50% of spaces? Some other number? More than we have now? Less?

Much like homeland security, the only politically acceptable answers are "more" and "the same amount as now." Such situations require that we rise above our immediate inclination to jump to the politically safe answer. That we resist the urge to puff up our sense of superiority by belittling those who present rational counterpoints. That we dispassionately consider the question.

As GP pointed out, causal observation -- and even a slightly more formal investigation by a couple comedians -- seems to indicate that the measurement we used was off. We seem to have substantially overestimated the right number. Lazy lard-asses may have their own flawed estimate, but being as wrong as we seem to be is also sub-optimal.

Also note that you may not see the problem that some do. Where I grew up, there was lots of cheap land, so there were never parking problems. The lazy lard-asses could always find plenty of parking even on a Saturday afternoon, and I felt exactly as you do about people who complained about the allocation ratio.

Then I moved to NYC. And some years after that, San Francisco. Different story there. Seeing a big lot, completely full of cars, with people circling, spewing toxic gas, near-missing pedestrians who appear from behind cars without looking, while half a dozen spaces sit empty, is not uncommon.

Seeing that scene replayed over and over and over never even remotely made me question the value of having handicapped parking spaces. But it did make me question the accuracy of the measurement used in estimating the allocation ratio.

Waste is waste -- even when it is for such an obviously just cause as enabling handicapped people to participate more fully in our society.

So the fact that a few able bodies people may have to wait a few minutes to find a space overrides the ability of a person in the wheelchair the ability to have a parking spot large enough to be able to get in and out of their vehicle? In the case of the able bodied person the issue is "I have to wait a few minutes". In the case of the person in the wheelchair it is "I have to go home".

The two comedians did not do any "investigation" at all. The took a few pictures of parking spots and ranted. They did no investigation into the ration of used regular spaces vs used disabled spots at various times of the day and year. Empty disabled spots is not a problem if there are regular spots are available or soon to be available. Even if the lot is full a few empty disabled spots is not an issue.

too few is not "relative" it's a deterministic requirement straight out of the ADA. the law is the same everywherein the US, and a business would have to be run by knuckleheads to get caught with their pants down on it.

ADA PARKING CHART [imgur.com] for lots between 501 and 1000 you must have 2% accessible, and so guy #11 could only sue if there were 550 or more spots in the lot

Friend of mine is in a wheelchair. Doesn't give a fuck about disabled parking spaces, parks anywhere, wheels along happily. This may contribute to the appearance of disabled parks being apparently empty.

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

Thats what gets to me. There are twice as many "Elderly persons" car parks outside my local super market than "Parents" car parks.
The elderly parks are mostly empty while the parents car parks are mostly full. The old people are still going to have to walk around the entire super market, so why can't they cross the carpark like other people? Parents however have little kids to manage who haven't spent the last 70 years of their life not being hit by a car and its safer to not have to cross the carpark.
Int

As someone who provided care for a wheelchair bound gentleman "Gord" I have spent much thought on this.

Gord was greatly affected by temperature and his body was slow to warm or cool if he got cold. Parking close to a door to get him inside or outside quickly was very important for his comfort. A larger then normal size parking spot was also needed so that his life could be lowered and he could actually be helped out of the van.

How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't. And as he would likely have hand activated driving controls it's not like he could just have someone move his car for him. So I don't believe your friend does this or is as confined to a wheelchair as you imply.There are many disabled people who can walk or move in some fashion around a large "store" but still can't carry bags or push carts long distances.

When I would head into a store or bank or shop while working for Gord I would consider whether or not it were best to use a handicapped spot. Considerations would include:1) How much time would Gord spend alone in the van (Gord was prone to seizures and had full time attendants as he could not be alone for long periods of time2) How many free handicapped spots were free. Not much sense in "stealing" a normal spot, forcing a healthy person to use an even further away spot while 4 handicapped spots were empty. Conversely, there was not much sense in using the last (or only) handicapped spot if there was a normal spot available within a reasonable distance.

How would your friend in the wheelchair be able to get back into his vehicle if someone parked too close to his door? He wouldn't

I can't speak for others, when someone parked too close, I have had to toss the chair in the rear hatch of the car and sit down on the ground and drag myself backwards with my hands to the driving seat. Very fun when there are puddles or ice. Once I even had to climb in the rear hatch of my (then) Honda and pull the wheelchair after me.[*]

No, far from all wheelchair users would be able to do either. A minority, if I were to guess.

[*] An asshole in a luxury car had parked in the shaded field right next t

It's not just about being closer to the building. Parking spaces for the disabled also tend to be wider to allow those with wheelchairs, crutches, and other aids to more easily exit their vehicle. If you can't find a space with an empty spot next to it, how is someone in a wheelchair supposed to get out of their car?

As I said on the Steve Jobs story a couple months ago, the biggest thing for me isn't so much where the spots are located as the simple fact that I need to make sure I have room to get a wheelchair between my vehicle and the one on my passenger side so I can transfer my disabled father into it. Handicapped spots are either wider or have markings between them to provide that room. If you think it's a pain in the ass when you come back to your car to find that someone has parked so close you can't open the door, try doing that with someone in a wheelchair. Worse, try do it in a busy parking lot (my dad's been sideswiped in his chair before despite the fact that he was wearing a bright red jacket.)

As someone that frequently parks in handicapped spots, my area (Western NY*) seems to have an amazing lack of them. It's often difficult to find open spots at grocery stores, doctors offices, etc. A few times a month, I'll end up deliberately parking at the far side of the parking lot precisely so I'll have room for the wheelchair because the closer spots are all taken. I try not to be that dick that parks in a way that takes up two spaces, though every now and then in lots or fields without markings, I'm forced to do that too because of the desire for some drivers to park touching the mirror of the car next to them.

* At one point, I think is was the American Fact Finder part of the census that listed this general area with a ridiculous amount of something like 37% of the population being classified as disabled. Granted, that's not all physical disabilities, but it stuck with me because the number seems so absurd. When it eclipses 50%, does being disabled become the norm with the super-abled being classified as the different ones?

He also finds it ironic, that there are disabled parks near supermarkets and department stores, fundamentally the kinds of stores where you'll be covering quite a distance moving around a large complex, there's not really much effort saved by having a disabled park close to the door.

Many such stores have scooters once you get inside. However, distance to the building is only one factor. People in wheelchairs, people bent over walkers, and people moving slowly tend to be more difficult to spot and are more likely to be hit by someone backing out of a spot. Minimizing the number of cars they have to pass minimizes the chances of them getting hit. These same people (well, except the wheelchair-bound) are also more likely to fall and injure themselves on slippery pavement, so a shorter distance is safer there too. Some people's illnesses may make them more sensitive to heat and cold, so it's best to get them into the climate controlled environment as quickly as possible. I'm sure there are other reasons, too.

You and your healthy wheelchair user friend are in error, on several accounts.It's much harder to use a wheelchair outdoors than indoors. On plain floors, good chairs pretty much roll themselves. Outdoors, not so much.My latest wheelchair had front wheels the size of (actually, they were) rollerblade wheels. Any outdoor rolling had to be done on the rear wheels only. Once indoor, though, I was as nimble as anyone else.

Then there are people who tire easily. You can take a break inside in the store. Not so much in the parking lot, between well-meaners and drivers who back up without seeing someone lower than their car. And if on crutches or just hard of walking, are you OK with them resting against em your car, setting off the alarm?

Risk of being run over is also a problem if you're just very slow due to your handicap. If it takes you ten minutes to walk to the front door, and you can't jump out of the way of cars that don't see you, it's by far safer to park up front.

Then you are also wrong in assuming that all the handicapped traverse the entire store. Many of them go to the service desk and get assistance, some because the store is too big for them to handle with their handicap, and some because they can't reach what's on the top three levels of the shelves anyhow.In some cases, I went to the service counter because the stores had aisles and check-out spaces made for narrow shopping carts, and not modern wheelchairs with cambered wheels.When I was on crutches, it was also pretty difficult. I could push a cart around in the store, but across a parking lot where the cart may take off due to gravity? No chance in hell. Would you rather I asked a clerk to help me get my groceries to the handicap parking right by the entrance, or spend 10 minutes walking with me across the parking lot?

Strange as it may sound, handicapped people are often just as insensitive as able bodied people, and sometimes even more so. Just because they have no problems traversing a big parking lot, they may think others who don't do so are lazy, without considering that they might not be as abled as them.

What I've noticed is that different types of establishments are more likely to have their handicapped spots utilized than others. The grocery store I frequent and the big box retailers like Target or Walmart are more likely to have people using their handicap spaces than a hardware store like Home Depot or Lowes. But even still, I do frequently notice people in the handicapped spaces at Home Depot and Lowes, so it's not like they're not used, just usually not filled. But just like the number of non-disabl

As a healthy, able-bodied driver I have often noticed vacant spots that are designated for the disabled.

And I thank God that I am a healthy, able-bodied driver who doesn't need to use those spots. I don't mind walking the extra 50m, 100m, 200m,...

For crying out loud, just:

1. imagine the mall / shopping centre didn't provide parking spots for another 50 metres2. think of the extra walking distance as incidental exercise3. consider how useful it is for someone who needs to use those spots4. be thankful you don't need to use those spots

A number of people who are disabled are not visibly disabled. For example, my husband's niece suffered from life-threatening asthma as a child—and by that, I mean there was a point when her immune system collapsed due to the drugs they had her on to keep her breathing. There was no outward sign that she couldn't walk far, so people would give her family dirty looks for parking (legally) in the handicapped spots. But she couldn't walk the length of a parking lot.

Now, she was a child, so a wheelchair might have been worthwhile in a number of situations. But imagine an adult in the same situation. The effort of lifting a wheelchair out of a car would be beyond them, and the method of propulsion wouldn't be any easier than walking. So they'd be better off walking the short distance inside, where they could sit down and wait until they felt well enough to walk further.

And if someone thinks they'd be better off staying at home, you've never been in contact with someone with chronic illness. It's isolating enough without being trapped at home.

I feel safe in saying that in most countries, if you're at risk of having a seizure, then your license is automatically suspended. However, driving is rarely a physically demanding activity, and there is no reason why a severe asthmatic, a paraplegic, or an excessively sweaty person cannot drive, even if they cannot then "walk a short distance with breaking sweat". Considering that we regularly allow people with raised levels of visual and cognitive impairment to drive home from the pub, there is no reason

Didn't that just stop him getting identified? They could still clamp his wheels.

A few anonymous calls to the police like "I saw some guys of middle eastern appearance get out of this car, unscrew the number plates, and drive off really fast in another car" would take care of the problem pretty quickly.

No, I remember hearing that what he did was technically legal. I think you (if you lived where Jobs lived) are allowed to have a car without a license plate within some grace period of first buying it.

Driving without the license plate was legal, parking in the handicap spot was not. Had I been in the area, I would have taken videos of Jobs parking and staying in the spot and sent them to the police and/or calling and reporting everytime the spot with illegaly filled. You don't need a license plate to be towed and good luck finding the car again after it's been removed. People who believe they're better than everyone else and act on those beliefs desevered to be bitchslapped every once in a while.

He owned the building complex, and you are only required to have a legally mandated number of handicapped spots. Steve insured that there were more than the legally mandated number of spots available so that he was never in technical violation of the rules.

He was perfectly within his rights, so long as there was not a sufficient number of other people gaming the system at the same time. I suggest you avoid trying to do the same thing, unless you are the property owner and the single largest tax payer in a given municipality, however.

You'll likely eventually win, unless you are a total dick, but the lawyer costs will exceed just paying the fine, since it isn't a moving violation and therefore will only cost you the fine.

The point was it was legal to park in the spot during the grace period, before your plates are applied for and issued.

That seems like a bit of a stupid loophole... around here (Ontario, Canada), no plates = not on the road, and a very expensive fine + impounding of your car if you get caught without plates. You can get a 10-day permit from the ministry of transport while waiting for custom plates, but that needs to be on display in your windshield for the duration that you're using it. Most dealers will do the paperwork for new plates or transferring your existing plates as part of the purchase, and will have your plates i

Job's d-bag parking goes back to the 80's and 90's. Jean-Louis Gassee once commented "I didn't know you could use them for the emotionally handicapped".

One report says that an Apple Employee covered the Handicap logo with a Mercedes logo and Jobs was none too pleased. Would be interesting to know if he did that at Pixar as there doesn't seem to be many stories about Steve Jobs at Pixar.

That's not typically legal, you're supposed to have a temporary paper license in the back window until the license plates arrive. If you don't have even that I doubt very much that it's legal anywhere as the police have no way of identifying ownership of the car without examining the VIN.

I don't know, the last couple years of his life, I think I could live with Steve getting a handicapped space. I've had a handicapped placard for over 10 years (after a major car accident.) I see people parking illegally all the time. Even when there is legal parking just a few spaces away. I'm lucky, I can walk a little ways (in spite of the severe pain.) There are many who are wheelchair bound who need the special large parking spaces to exit their vehicles. People who take those places because they are lazy or resent not those places not being used as often as regular space are arguing against showing the injured and handicapped special consideration in what amounts to one of the smallest possible ways. Its almost nothing to an able bodied person to walk a few yards more to a store entrance. For a number of handicapped people its the difference in being able to go to the store and not.

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

It wouldn't hurt the world to develop a miniscule amount of compassion and human dignity. Sadly our society as a whole has been remiss in instilling these qualities in our children today.

There are two major obstacles. 1) Most people want power, it is glorified, and neither for any noble reason. 2) The primary way power is expressed is by disrespecting, subjugating, or mistreating someone who is expected to have to take it. It's why so many politicians and executives are sociopaths.

The saner and healthier you are as a person, the less desire you have to manipulate and control people and activities which don't concern you and don't pose any sort of danger. That kind of self-importance doesn't appeal to people who have the human qualities you mention. It's just that living in this sort of hierarchical system, where most people are petty or psychotic, and witnessing all of the injustice will greatly test those qualities.

So we end up needing to write laws to try to force people to have certain behaviors instead of it happening in a natural kind of way that comes from an ability to consider someone other than yourself. I like the contrast Aristotle provided when he said, "I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law." That's the humanized way. The other way is more like a machine executing programmed instructions.

In some cultures, you show how awesome you are by inconveniencing as many people as possible. It isn't unusual for someone to flat out park in the middle of a busy street, lock up, and walk into a shop. Thankfully they keep each other in check because someone will eventually be along that doesn't care to get a new dent in their bumper and will simply push the car off the road or otherwise mangle it.

A certain section of people here in the US do similar things, only not quite as illegal. I watched seven people at a table the other day all change their orders over and over every time a waiter came back to their table, and ended up leaving a bunch of non-restaurant trash on their table when they left..no tip, of course. Their bill was over $100 and they shorted the place on that too.

I see people parking illegally all the time. Even when there is legal parking just a few spaces away. I'm lucky, I can walk a little ways (in spite of the severe pain.) There are many who are wheelchair bound who need the special large parking spaces to exit their vehicles.

At a local school, someone came up with a solution when the handicap spot was inappropriately used: They simply parked in the street right behind the car, trapping them in. The idiot had to sit there until the fellow with the handicap sticker got back and left.:D

Yes you can go to jail for people who abuse it what some who really needed that space but did not get do to jobs may of called the cops and at very least got it towed or maybe even have jobs go to jail.

now with there was 1 common tag that was easy to get in all citys and was easy to use in rented cars then that's ok but to say some from a city with out a electronic tag is parking improperly is not a good idea. Why should some have to go out of there way just to visit a different city?

now with there was 1 common tag that was easy to get in all citys and was easy to use in rented cars then that's ok but to say some from a city with out a electronic tag is parking improperly is not a good idea. Why should some have to go out of there way just to visit a different city?

It's a means to identify someone who may be parked there illegally. If the traffic cop comes by and see's a legitimate non-electronic tag i doubt he/she is going to write a ticket.

It's only going to become a problem in phase 2 when sharp spikes leap out of the ground and puncture the tyres of cars without an electronic tag.

They are already doing this in Melbourne (Australia) for regular parking spots. Some spots have sensors which detect when a vehicle enters and leaves the spot, and car-mounted camera's drive around checking plates as well. It wouldn't be too hard to extend that to cars known to have permits or not.

I'm not sure though, even in Australia where I live, if the permits are linked to the vehicle or the person. The latter would make more sense (eg if you're helping a friend out by taking them to the shops in your

The simple answer is just to use fines. No really. Violations of this really aren't a huge problem for instance in Canada, they do happen but ask yourself. If you get caught, is a $5k first offence worth it? Is a $10k second offence worth it? That includes using fake, and placards that are not for the person. In most places that I've seen across the US, and other places the fines are pathetic. $100, 200, and so on.

The simple answer is just to use fines. No really. Violations of this really aren't a huge problem for instance in Canada, they do happen but ask yourself. If you get caught, is a $5k first offence worth it? Is a $10k second offence worth it? That includes using fake, and placards that are not for the person. In most places that I've seen across the US, and other places the fines are pathetic. $100, 200, and so on.

Not sure what part of Canada you're in, but in Ontario the fine for parking in a handicapped spot without a permit is $305. I know, because my mother has a permit, and has had to go to city hall on several occasions to fight the fine when some idiot cop "didn't see" it or thought it was a fake. For that reason alone, I hope that this proposed system works... the permits are international, so it'll still create hassle for international travellers, but if it gives the locals an ability to have a transponder o

To say the employment of the handicapped declined after passage of the ADA is a great oversimplification.

For example there was a concomitant reclassification of non-disabled people as disable for a number of reasons, the major one being the cutting of welfare benefits which encouraged non-employable people to seek out disabled classification.

That made it look like there was a decrease in employment for employed handicapped folks but that actually turns out not to be the case. The level of employment for previously employed handicapped folks stayed the same or possible increased slightly.

As with most things it is not as simple as a half sentence talking point.

The standard fire department protocol for dealing with a car that's parked in a fire lane if they get there and there's a fire is to break the windows and run the hose through the car, or else push it out of the way with a fire truck and then break the windows.

Reading comments so far on this thread with people arguing about actual need for “walking disabled” parking spaces, I realize that this is just one of those topics you cannot possibly truly comprehend without being a disabled person. Sure, I understand that many parking spots may go unused and the there are of course those that abuse the system. However, there are also a large number of people, like me, that really need this kind of parking system. Nothing sucks more than trying to unload a 300 pound electric wheelchair when boxed in by two SUVs so close the doors cannot open. In addition, nothing sucks more than having to traipse across a large parking lot looking for a lost car when ever step you take puts you in excruciating pain. In fact, without this reserved parking system, I simply would not be able to go many places or partake in many activities. Even on a good day, it really is a confidence booster to know that if something goes wrong and I need to exit in a hurry that my car is right out front.

This walking disabled parking system, while maybe not perfect, is in place to serve those that actually need it. Thus, the bottom line is that while you may not understand or agree with enforcement actions such as those now being enacted in New Zealand, there are many people with a legitimate need that will indeed benefit from it.

I propose cameras pointed in to toilet stalls with 24/7 monitoring to ensure that handicapped toilet stalls aren't abused by those able-bodied assholes. We'll also need to amend the building code to increase the total number of available stalls to ensure that the population is appropriately served.

I was on the building planning committee for a new building at Stanford. The bathrooms are comically large because of handicap access requirements. Despite consuming 800 square feet, there are only six total stalls. The same building also has two handicapped parking spots out front, out of four parking spots total.

Given that the population served is, on average, 22 years old and in excellent health, these measures seem inappropriate. Things would be completely different if this were a retirement home.

There is a huge difference between parking places and toilet stalls. Parking spaces are designated for disabled people because that allow access to the buildings and it is against the law for someone without a disabled parking permit to park there. Toilet stall are about accommodating disabilities and providing access to needed facilities. There is no law against an able bodied person using a stall that is designed for disabled access. The main difference being that a disabled person can wait their turn for

You'd think by this time we could spend our efforts making better use of these spaces? Instead of a system that automatically watches and simply penalizes people who use these spots, how about a system that works on the opportunity-cost model? It woulda) monitor these parking placesb) if a valid handicap parking-user shows up and there are no spots available, anyone parked in them gets tagged and fined.

We've all been at shopping centers where there are dozens if not scores of empty handicap spots available, even during the crazy-busy shopping days at Christmas.

This would make these (generally unused) spots available for the sort of high-demand, short "I'm only going to be in there for 5 mins" things" BUT ALSO strongly penalize people who use them for anything more IF there is a valid handicap space user that needs it...

But seriously, survival of the fittest. Those who cannot walk 50 feet should not be coddled. Half the time it is some overweight heifer who won't take care of herself. The other half it is just someone who survived to 70. But the bottom line is that I am a Darwinist and don't see why we make life easier for those who can't take care of themselves.

Either be in shape or be part of a family network that will take care of you. If you can't do either, then don't go shopping. Simple as that. Survival of the fittest got us where we are today. Quit fucking with evolution.

On the one hand I admire your willingness to admit an opinion (or I would if you put your name to it) that I suspect a lot of able bodied people keep to themselves, but I bet you'd feel different if you or someone you cared about suddenly developed some disease that greatly reduced your mobility.

And even if Darwin was wanting to help evolution along, even he would be smart enough to know that letting a few arthritic 70 year olds die isn't going to make even the tiniest bit of difference to the process. If you want to help evolution along, maybe you should campaign for preventing people with inheritable diseases from passing those diseases on to their kids (either by genetic pre-testing or just stopping them having kids). The truth is that most disabled people aren't disabled because of some genetic trait, but because of some other unfortunate incident along the way.

So maybe keep your unfortunate prejudices to yourself or at least stop pretending that you have evolution on your side.

While the OP incorrectly calls on Darwin to make his point, there is a subtle wider issue that is not getting the same attention.

What does it mean to be disabled?

This may just be my own prejudice creeping out but I have a.... acquaintance who gets government assistance because of her obesity. She also gets government assistance because she's a single mother, jobless, and whatnot, but best of all do you know what her 1 year old baby's favourite meal is? KFC Chicken Nuggets. But that's not my biggest gripe. My biggest gripe is that she also has a disabled parking permit and again gets another government check for a disease that some people think doesn't really exists and is all in the patients head [wikipedia.org]. Naturally doctors are reluctant to diagnose this "disease" and 10 different doctors told her she's as healthy as a grossly overweight person can get. Doctor 11 caved and now she gets to park her perfectly abled body in a disabled carpark and spend my tax dollars on more Macdonalds.

Another thing unrelated to disabled people, why do shopping centres reserve spots right next to disabled people for parents with prams? If a mother can spend 3 hours pushing a pram through the shopping centre she can spend the extra 1 minute pushing it to her car. In this country though the parents with prams reservation isn't legally enforceable.

The OP may have originally invoked Darwin in a way that offends, but as a society on the whole we are being coddled.

Just because a few fatties may or may not be exploiting a system designed to help people with a genuine need doesn't mean it's a completed screwed up system. If she really is exploiting the system then problem is the 11th doctor (and 12th, 13th etc she would have eventually found if the 11th hadn't played ball), not the existence of disabled parking spots. I think you're venting your frustration at the wrong target here.

Fibromyalgia is a real thing, but like many such diseases, there is no test for it and no way to "prove" it exists (at least not yet), so there will always be doubters. It's also quite possible that it's not any single disease, but rather can have multiple causes. Maybe it's not a diease at all, but symptoms of something else like an allergy or who knows what?

I have a disease like that. There's no test, and no cure. It's called Psoriatic Arthritis. Luckily, you can see the effects (swollen joints and l

the code by which animals live in the serengeti has nothing really to do with how or why human beings choose to order their societies

but i'll be sure to kneecap you next time i see you walking down the street and just steal your stuff. i'm not interested in doing that, but since you are broadcasting to everyone that you believe this is the way society should be ordered: pure darwinism, then i'm just conforming to your wishes about how you think you should be treated

and i look froward to your reply, in which you engage in hollywood fantasies about how well armed and prepared you are 24/7 to survive in such a world and how perfect you will be in deflecting my attack. because you are omniscient and omnipotent, apparently. seems to me that's an intellectual failure to understand your essential weaknesses as an individual human being

so, maybe your professed darwinistic ideology really is evolution playing out: the less intelligent among us choosing a mode of "morality" that ensures your life (not my life, i'm not abiding by your beliefs) is brutish, mean, and short: darwinistic. thus ensuring you won't pass on your genes. and i, choosing the way of human morality, and respecting the physically weaker amongst us, who still contribute to society, and playing by the simple rules of decency and respect, amongst others playing by the same code of decency and respect, together, we will survive and define society, and reproduce this code

because in the contest of survival in this world, a well coordinated group of physically weak and average intelligence homo sapiens, but respectful of each other and coordinating with each other, outcompetes the lone superstrong supersmart who do not work well in groups. enjoy your extinction, inferior homo sapiens. genetics is over. memetics is the new game. play catch up or die off

I don't know why you assume it would be good for business. The cost to put in a handicapped ramp may not be justified by returns, especially if it would lead me to increase prices and my competitor didn't make the same choice. Plus which, early adopters invariably pay more. The law is basically society getting together and saying "we want this to happen, but we realize nobody is going to make the sacrifices unless we make sure everyone makes them together".

From what I've seen, most people with handicap stickers park in a way that tells you they're handicapped. Usually they're at a sharp angle off of the parallel from the lines or they park really close to another car. Even when it's a little compact car in a space reserved for a van with 5 or 6 feet clearance on all sides, so you know it's not because they need the extra room

You "know" very little. Parking at an angle can be the only way to ensure that there will be space to get to the driver's seat with a wheelchair - there may be plenty of space now, but the wheelchair user has to think of what happens when the car next to him leaves and another one takes its place. You just don't know how close the person is going to park, likes or no. Parking at an angle makes it much more likely that you can get in and out.